MHCC020039472022
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GR. MUMBAI AT MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO.685 OF 2022
Nohid Noor Mohd Khan,
Age: 28 Years, Occ: Business.

]
]…Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
]
(At the instance of Ghatkopar Police ]
Station, vide C.R. No.72 of 2022)
]…Respondent.
Advocate Ashwini Gaikwad for the applicant /accused.
APP Sachin Patil for the State.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
Dr. Shri.U.J.More (C.R. No.58)
(Incharge Court Room No.60)
DATE
:
11th APRIL, 2022
ORDER
1.

This is bail application filed by the applicant /accused under
section 439 of Cr.P.C. in C.R. No.72 of 2022 of Ghatkopar Police Station
for offence punishable under sections 394 and 506(II) of Indian Penal
Code r/w. section 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
2.

The case of the prosecution is that on 25.02.2022 at 8.00 a.m. the
complainant Anant Karshingarkar was walking from his house to
Ghatkopar Railway Station under the metro bridge in front of one man
ran in front of informant and the said person started pushing to him
and assaulted on his ear and knocked to him down and took mobile
from his shirt pocket and pushed informant. He was abused and beaten
Page 1 of 3
by the person who shouted for help, the pedestrian and autorickshaw
coming around would had came to help the informant. He removed
knife from his pocket and threatened to all people that “Agar koi beach
me aayega toh usko kat dunga”, people chased him and caught hold
him. Offence registered under the aforesaid sections.
3.

The case of the applicant is that he is falsely implicated. His
family is totally depend on him. The FIR is silent about recovery of
mobile in the panchanama. Section 394 of Indian Penal Code is not
applicable.
4.

Heard both sides. Perused application and say. It reveals that
more than 15 property offence as well as body offences are pending
against the accused at Bhandup Police Station, Parksite Police Station,
Kanjurmarg Police Station and Powai Police Station. He is habitual
offender having same modus operandi. If he is released on bail, it will
go wrong message in the society and it will be detriment to the safety of
the property of the society. Considering, his habitual act of commission
of offence, he is not entitled to release on bail, I am of the considered
opinion that this case does not come within the ambit of principle jail is
exception, bail is rule. Hence, the order:­
1.

ORDER
Bail Application No.685 of 2022 is rejected being devoid of
merits.
2.

Bail Application No.685 of 2022 stands disposed of accordingly.
UMESHCHANDRA
JAIKUMAR MORE
Date : 11/04/2022
Order Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
Digitally signed by
UMESHCHANDRA
JAIKUMAR MORE
Date: 2022.04.13
12:10:09 +0530
(Dr. U.J.More)
Additional Sessions Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay
: 11/04/2022
: 11/04/2022
: 11/04/2022
Page 2 of 3
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
13.04.2022
Upload Time
12.07 p.m.

Name of Stenographer
ARUN ANNAMALAI MUDALIYAR
Name of the Judge (With Court HIS HONOUR THE ADDL.
Room No.)
SESSIONS JUDGE
Dr. SHRI. U. J. MORE (CR 58)
Date of Pronouncement
JUDGEMENT /ORDER
of 11.04.2022
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by 11.04.2022
P.O. on
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded 13.04.2022
on
Page 3 of 3